A U.S. federal judge has ruled that Napster is not a “mere conduit” for MP3 files, and the case against Napster brought by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) will continue.

Napster sought to be treated like an ISP, which are not responsible for content going through their services, but the judge pointed out that the actual connections of music transfer do not go through the Napster servers, but are Internet to Internet connections, different than traffic that travels through an ISP.

ROB'S OPINION
So, ISPs are not responsible for traffic on their systems, but Napster can be held accountable for traffic that doesn't go through its servers? That's an odd ruling indeed, but one that doesn't surprise me. The law is a tricky game where the object of the game is to box your opponent into guilt or innocence by using the literal meaning of words in lengthily worded laws. It's a game that a lot of people don't understand, and thus there is widespread distrust of lawyers.

I was thinking about the case that Metallica brought up against Napster, and the resulting delivery of 335,000 names to Napster. Napster claims that it will now go through these names, as its policy dictates. How hard is it to get a new Napster ID? So, users get cut off, but then they just re-install the program and start again. Sure, maybe Metallica feels better, but nothing is really accomplished.

Don't feel as if the RIAA is closer to defeating Napster because of the ruling that favored its argument. It just won a small battle that if Napster had won would have ended this case entirely. The trial continues, and we anxiously await the result.

I find it amusing that some artists get angry that Napster allows people to swap “their” music. Don't they know that they don't really own that music anymore? The RIAA does.